With Iraq rapidly falling apart, it’s fairly indisputable to anybody with critical thinking and comprehension skills that George W. Bush will easily go down as one of the worst presidents in United States history. Long-term success in Iraq was about the only thing I think he felt might have saved his legacy. I think he hoped that thirty years from now we’d all look back and say, “Well it took a while, but looking at the success of Iraq as a free democracy in the Middle East, the Iraq War was ultimately worth it.”

Well, with ISIS threatening a complete takeover of Iraq, those hopes are now long gone. Because even if Iraq turns into a strong democracy down the line, it won’t be because of the actions of George W. Bush. His “plan” ultimately did nothing more than destabilize the nation, which is what has allowed for these ISIS Islamic radicals to gain control of many parts of the country.

And now it’s left up to President Obama to clean up yet another disaster caused by the Bush administration.

But hey, if you just think I’m some “radical left-wing liberal” who’s always trying to blame everything on George W. Bush, you don’t have to take my word on it.

Just ask ultra-conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. During a segment on Fox News Sunday, Ingraham admitted that Iraq is far worse off now than before and Bush’s policies are the reason why.

Ingraham was asked by Chris Wallace if she agreed with President Obama’s decision to order airstrikes in Iraq.

“It’s really hard, I don’t think you can judge how he did right now,” Ingraham answered. “We’re almost in an impossible situation. The America people really have no appetite for America to reengage. They don’t want us to go into Syria.”

“He’s now reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction,” she continued. “If we do nothing here, then what? I mean, let’s say Iraq does fall, which I think is a possibility. Iraq may fall. If, indeed, there are no boots are the ground, not going to happen, can’t happen.”

She then went on to say, “I don’t know if there’s a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the United States of America.”

Then the real truth of the whole matter came out.

“We tried to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off!” she insisted. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went in to Iraq. Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all. Saddam Hussein is gone. That’s a good thing, but what’s left? A more emboldened Islamic state.”

Saddam was a bad guy – nobody is denying that – but he wasn’t a threat to anyone but his own people. But now with the country destabilized, their weak government has allowed for radical militants to seize control of many parts of Iraq. And an Iraq controlled by ISIS isa legitimate threat.

But isn’t all of this just the icing on the “cake” known as the Bush presidency? After all is said and done, the lie he told about Iraq being a threat back in 2003 has ultimately turned out to be true. Though it’s not because of Saddam Hussein, but because of Bush’s own incompetence.

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, inquiries, criticism or compliments? You can email him as well.

Comments

Say what you will about Saddam, he kept the religious wars under control in his country. He wasn’t the friend of Al Queda they made him out to be, either—they hated Saddam as much as they hated us. He was brutal, but Laura Ingram was right—he was a threat to his own people. The biggest threat he was to us was trying to move his oil off the petro-dollar. If the rest of the Middle East had followed suit, this country would be in massive trouble. It would turn into a third world country almost over night. It’s why we’re friends with brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia. Because, face it, democracy is not their goal. It’s not even on their radar. What they don’t do is get chesty about moving their oil onto the Euro. It keeps us looking the other way when it comes to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.

standbehindtheyellowline

One the biggest mistake made was GW wanting to out do his Father, who knew the importance of Saddam in control there. So now we are pretty much obligated to take care of the Iraqi’s.
We lost 3500+ lives just to be held hostage.

giankeys luvs shemale porn

and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,saddam kept IRAN at bay with saddams military might. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,NOW?????

Jim Bean

There’s a lot to be said for chemical warfare and ethnic cleansing.

Matthew Reece

This sort of thing is nothing new. Look at the result of overthrowing a democratic government and replacing it with an absolute monarchy in Iran in 1953. But war hawks hardly ever learn.

Success in Iraq would have been ultimately worth it and its not out of the realm of possibility, even with Obama in the way for eight years, that success might ultimately come. And if it does, credit will go to the man who started the process, not the man that left al-Maliki hanging from the vine.

Tim Vega

You are a fucking idiot!! al-Maliki has no one to blame but himself! He is the one that would not sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)! Amazing how asshats like you think history didn’t start until 1/20/09

Jim Bean

When Obama raised the white flag, al-Maliki was left high and dry with no support and in a fight for his own survival. You think his first priority should have been agreements with a man openly saying, “Just so you know, I don’t have your back” (?)